An assessment of the efficiency of the duty of care to make transnational corporations liable for harm caused by their subsidiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fairness of globalization is called into question when subsidiaries of large transnational corporations harm local populations in countries where they have little chance of obtaining compensation, and these victims cannot turn against the parent companies that enjoy significant advantages by outsourcing their activities. Indeed, parent companies can in principle hide behind the corporate veil to avoid having to compensate the victims of their subsidiaries' activities, unless the latter establish that the parent company owed them a duty of care. By allowing the establishment of a direct liability of the parent companies, the duty of care enables the difficulties caused by the principle of separate legal personality to be overcome. This concept thus seems relevant to enable victims of acts committed by a subsidiary to obtain compensation directly from its parent company, and it turns out that Canada is one of the countries where the discussion on the duty of care of parent for the actions of their subsidiaries has been the more elaborate. This thesis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the duty of care to engage the liability of Canadian parent companies for the negative effects of their subsidiaries’ activities abroad.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".